Featured The Vast Majority of Christian Denominations are Christian "cults"

And so a denomination could reject the virgin birth, the deity of Christ, the trinity but as long as they still maintain the bible as the only scripture then they are a Christian denomination in your estimation?

 

Sorry Gentleman, but I choose to define what is a Christian cult by the absolutes of Scripture not by the subjective personal opinions and definitions that have been so far expressed on this forum.

Consider this, are "Christian cults" in your estimation equivalent to being "accursed"? If not, then the Bible condemns those who deny Biblical justification WORSE than what you define as a Christian cult, but if so, then they are as scripturally as bad as what you subjectively define as Christian cults. So either way your position is proven false.

Consider this, 99% of those who repudiate eternal security of TRUE believers also reject the biblical doctrine of justification by grace alone through faith alone in Christ alone WITHOUT WORKS and the bible condemns such with the strongest possible condemnation as "accursed." You have nothing but subjective personal definitions for what you condemn in what you consider to be the strongest possible designation "Christian cult" but what I define as a "Christian cult" is based on the strongest explicit condemnation scripture uses "let him be accursed."

You have moved from the scripture to traditions as your standard for your strongest condemnation of professed Christendom who you would define as a "Christian Cult" while I base my definitions of a "Christian cult" on the what the Scripture explicitly uses the strongest condemnation for. I will stick with the scripture application and condemnation and will leave you to your traditions, and subjective personal opinions.

 

I presented solid reasonable arguments in the post above. I included no jokes, no humor and yet when the best that my opponents can do is mock you know their position is not only weak but non-existent and obviously wrong.

 

Would you at least agree that those who repudiate the Biblical doctrine of justification by grace alone, through faith alone in Christ alone WITHOUT WORKS are the subjects in view in Galatians 1:8-9 or can you find any other subject or doctrine in Galatians 1-5 that it applies to? Then can you agree with Paul that all who preach "another gospel" should be regarded as "accursed"?

Finally, would you do me the kindness of pointing out in that post you mocked where either my logic, my arguments or my scriptural application is flawed?

 

You realize that circumcision was the introductory rite of committment to keeping the whole law in the life of a Jew and this is being applied to Christians in these churches? So inclusion of circumcision is inclusion of the whole law.

Second, even if you restrict it to "circumcision" does not the principle equally forbid commandment keeping of any sort being added to the doctrine of justification by faith?

Paul said if any man "preach any other gospel" not if any man "revert back to Judaism." I never asked you to comment on eternal security but on actual subject matter of Galatians 1-5 which is the doctrine of justification by faith without works. I asked you if Galatians 1:8-9 is applicable to those who deny justification by grace alone through faith alone in Christ alone WITHOUT WORKS of any kind including circumcison, baptism or whatever. Would you please address the precise questions I asked?

I also asked you to kindly point out any logical or scriptural flaw in the post you mocked. And I notice that you continue to keep mocking my response. Do you think your response is the response of a Christian gentleman?

 

Here is my post that so far the only response has been ridicule instead of any kind of positive criticism. Brethren, if you disagree with this post, would you be kind enough to point out any flaw in my logic or arguments or scripture I have used in this post. I am not going to ridicule your responses. I am not asking for your opinions or feelings but actual flaws that you can point out.

 

So you have nothing but personal opinions and emotions to support your view. You have been evasive to specific questions and yet you feel you can openly mock what you cannot give a reasonable or Biblical based response?

So in your opinion Galatians 1:8-9 has no present day application to anything contextually related to it?

 

First, Cornelius did not preach "another gospel" or identify with a cult and so your example is simply invalid and has nothing to do with Galatians 1:8-9. Your personal opinion and emotion are invalid and have nothing to do with the Biblical basis for the application and conclusion in this thread. Your emotions are no different than paedobaptist emotions that think it is terrible to forbid baptism to infants.

If you could find a valid logical or Biblical flaw in the post that you ridiculed you would have presented it. So I am asking you to kindly set aside your emotions and personal opinions and offer valid criticisms to that post you ridiculed.

 

Gentleman, again to those who disagree with my position, would you kindly point out valid criticisms you can find in the above post if you think I am wrong. I am not asking for your personal opinions or emotional feelings.